Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdvertCity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's two basic arguments in play here.

The first is whether some of the sources, specifically Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are WP:RS. I don't know the full history of WP:VG/S, i.e. is it just an essay, or real policy, but those two sources are listed there and it seems like a cogent analysis of the source space, so I'm going to accept that they're both WP:RS.

The second is whether the actual cited references are really indicative of WP:N, or if they're just recycled press releases. I can't discern any consensus on that point.

I don't know if this should be closed as keep or no consensus. Given that they're effectively the same thing, however, I'm not to going sweat it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AdvertCity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has referenciness, but they are not reliable, independent, secondary sources, and Google doesn't offer much hope of replacements that are. Fails to establish notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the publisher (i.e. going beyond listings and recycled press releases). Guy (Help!) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Destructoid and rock, paper shotgun are very good references. There are some bad references, but passes GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Destructoid are blogs and not sufficient to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Unfortunately the opinion you are presenting is not supported by consensus. Whether a source's container is a blog-type news site, a print magazine, a podcast or a town crier, what matters is journalistic/editorial oversight. You can refer to WP:VG/S to see existing consensus in the evaluation of industry-specific sources -- Rock, Paper, Shotgun isn't just some blog shite and has been the subject of lengthy discussions resulting in consensus for its general appropriateness; on the other hand discussions about Destructoid resulted in a more case-by-case careful approach, requiring that individual authors be evaluted separately when necessary, however unfortunately in this case the author Alasdair Duncan (not Alasdair Duncan, not the 60-year-old actor, not the Je Zaum artist) shares a name (surprisingly, at least to me!) with other people having coverage online, complicating research. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinion, it's what we say about them in our articles! That's why I linked them. Now, you may mean that "consensus" among fans of games is to ignore WP:RS and declare them reliable anyway, and that is possibly true, we have the same problem in a number of areas. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I said this on your WP:RSN post, I'll say it here, too: While, yes, they do post in blog format, Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are extremely prominent; they have good reputations in the industry, they exert editorial control and basic fact-checking and so on. I wouldn't cite them for things outside of the narrow field of game reviewing (since that's their reputation and the expertise of their staff), but within that field I think it's absurd to suggest that they couldn't at least be cited for the "significant commentary" that WP:NVIDEOGAMES requires. As far as games commentary goes, they're top-tier sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Contrary to your comment about "recycled press releases" - there has never even been a press release made about this game. When I have edited this page in the past I have always made sure to quote only legitimate review sites, and I have previously verified all the references here and they all looked fine to me at the time. Rock paper shotgun have covered the game on two separate occasions; for an indie game you can't expect much more than that these days. Slow Riot (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Slow Riot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete - The article has been WP:BOMBARDed with sources, but from an in depth read, they are all essentially the same news release about how the game's on Kickstarter. The nominator is highly incorrect in his assertion that those sites are not reliable sources, see WP:VG/S, but it lacks WP:SUSTAINED. In terms of post release critique there is very little, and the article uses weasel words to cast it in a better light, such as using user reviews, which shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article. The game lacks notability and does suffer from recycling of similar sources. Yes, it is hard for an indie game to get on Wikipedia, but that's kind of the point. Wikipedia is not a directory of indie games, if your game doesn't get on Wikipedia that doesn't mean it sucks. Just that it didn't pick up notability from the media._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of bad sources here, and the article needs serious cleanup, but Destructoid and Rock, Paper, Shotgun trivially pass the bare minimum of "significant commentary" required for WP:NVIDEOGAMES. I don't feel that the fact that they're published in a blog format is sufficient to disqualify them; their staff are almost all established professionals in the field (granted that the reputation of both outlets is sufficient that being hired by one can turn someone into an established professional in the field), they have basic editorial controls, and they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would still be cautious about using them for other things, but I think it's absurd to suggest that they're not usable for uncontroversal "significant commentary" in a direct game review, at a bare minimum, since they have a strong reputation there. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are several bad references which can be removed, which I would be happy to help with if the article is kept (for example there is no need to mention, let along include a source about a lack of metacritic score). There are just enough usable references left to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In support of the comments about the sources being poor: The Rock, Paper, Shotgun references are simple announcements. If these are the best sources available, which seems to be the conclusion at the RSN discussion, then the article is pure WP:SOAP. The Destroid ref is no better. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is still plenty of systemic bias in favour of the interests of young male Westerners in Wikipedia. In the case of pornography the ridicule has been enough for us to tighten our notability guidelines quite dramatically, but there is still plenty to do about other topics such as popular music and computer games. We discount blogs and other such unreliable sources for most topics, so we should do the same here. Where are the books from university presses and the academic papers that have coverage of AdvertCity? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.